Appearance Review Commission (ARC)

APPROVED COPY Appearance Review Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2015 A meeting of the Appearance Review Commission was held on Monday, February 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Village Hall Conference Room, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Chairman Dick Coen called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present were Dick Coen, Chairman Beth Chaitman Sean Ehlke Sherry Flores Jim Hollis Elizabeth Low Absent was Lisa Dunn Also Present: Jean Spagnoli, Village Planner Jeri Cotton, Secretary Public Comment: There was no Public Comment. Document Approval Mr. Ehlke moved to approve the minutes from the February 9, 2015 Appearance Review Commission meeting. Ms. Chaitman seconded the motion. Mr. Ehlke made minor corrections. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Business 1. Marathon/Gulf, 700 Waukegan Road – canopy and signs Jim Tarzon, contractor with Station Imaging, Ken Kearns, principal with PS Fuels, Rick Mistretta, principal with PS Fuels and Ed Mistretta, president and owner of Deerfield Marathon/Gulf were present. Mr. Kearns explained they propose converting the station from Marathon to Gulf Oil. They will modify the price sign (ground sign) by changing out the name panel and having the sign show one price. They propose removing the Marathon name from the canopy and adding a Gulf logo on a blue canopy. The illuminated logo will be placed 13” from the street edge of the canopy. The logo will Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 2 of 10 protrude a 6” depth from the canopy to allow for the illumination. They will replace the decals on the pumps with a Gulf decal on the bottom and a colored panel with the clouds on the top with a pump number rather than a logo. Mr. Kearns explained they propose adding a building sign to reinforce they also service vehicles. The sign will be non-illuminated and will state Village Auto Repair. The letters will be ½” thick white Sintra. The background will be painted blue, which will be an identical color match to the canopy. Ch. Coen questioned whether the white would also be repainted. Mr. Ed Mistretta explained they would be repainting the entire façade. Mr. Ehlke noted the blue color extends around the entire building. Ch. Coen noted the metal on the canopy would be replaced with a PMS 301 blue metal canopy and the metal material would run behind the sign. The commissioners were okay with the color and material. Ch. Coen noted the sign is 6” deep. He ensured the entire sign face would be flush. Mr. Kearns noted the sign would have a ¾” emboss for both the white and the orange making the depth 6-3/4” deep. Ch. Coen questioned whether the entire sign would be on the same plane. Mr. Kearns believes the sign is not as thick as the individual channel letters at the Mobil station. Ch. Coen ensured the illuminated portion would be one flat surface that does not have any depth. Mr. Kearns believes the sign copy will protrude ½” from the white surface behind the letters (which already protrudes ¾”.) Ms. Spagnoli noted the Mobil letters on the canopy have a 6” depth, but they are flat faced letters. Ms. Chaitman questioned whether other gas stations have protrusions on their signs. Ms. Spagnoli indicated the Shell station has a slight protrusion of 9/16”. Mr. Kearns noted the orange and white are on the same surface. The commissioners are okay with the sign primarily because the Shell sign face protrudes slightly. Mr. Ehlke noted the canopy signage, as the main visual sign for this property along Waukegan Road, is critical for the gas station. Mr. Hollis indicated the embossing is so minimal and questioned what purpose is served. Mr. Kearns explained a flat sign would be a special order. Ch. Coen requested the registered trademark symbol be removed from the sign. He also asked that the cutoff switch be placed on the west side of the signs so they are not as visible. Mr. Kearns noted they will be using fluorescent lamps, but they would prefer to change to LED illumination if there is an opportunity. Ch. Coen indicated that if any other illumination is requested, the petitioner must come before the commission before installation. He ensured the returns on the signs are white. Mr. Hollis moved to approve the proposal as submitted for the canopy changes and signs on the canopy with the understanding that the Commission is approving the minimal ½” embossment of the Gulf text, the PMS 301 color, there is no ® on the sign, the safety switch will be moved to the west on both signs, the lighting will be fluorescent. If there are any changes, the Village will need to be informed prior to installation. Ms. Low seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Coen, Ehlke, Flores, Hollis, Low (6) NAYS: None (0) Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 3 of 10 The commissioners discussed the proposed ground sign. The ground sign would be the existing double faced sign. Ch. Coen questioned whether the sign would be embossed. Mr. Tarzon believes the Gulf letters would be raised. Ch. Coen questioned whether the self-service letters could be removed from the sign. He questioned the illumination of the sign. Mr. Kearns noted the ground sign has fluorescent illumination. Ch. Coen suggested keeping all the sign illumination fluorescent, for consistency. He noted the Commission would like to see dimensions for the panel, specifically the distribution of the sign face depth. Mr. Tarzon noted there are two separate panels and the signs will fit in the existing cabinets. Ch. Coen questioned whether the Gulf would be convex on the ground sign. Mr. Kearns suggested approving the sign face subject to the protrusion being not more than 1”. The commissioners were okay if the letters protrude a 1” depth or less. Ch. Coen would not be comfortable with the orange disc protruding as well. Mr. Mistretta noted the thickest protrusion for the ground sign is 2- 1/4” from the face to the widest point. The commissioners believe the protrusion is too much. Ms. Chaitman requested the petitioner submit a fully dimensioned drawing. Ch. Coen noted the sign appears to have multiple depths. Mr. Hollis, Ch. Coen and Mr. Ehlke are comfortable with projecting the letters in the word Gulf and keeping the rest of the sign flat. Ms. Chaitman, Ms. Flores and Ms. Low would not want the sign to protrude more than 9/16” thick. Ch. Coen questioned whether the clouds could be removed from the ground sign as it was eliminated from the canopy sign. The commissioners believe the sign would read better as solid blue, but are okay keeping the clouds. Ch. Coen noted the Commission will need further definition on the top panel with the exact dimensions. Mr. Ehlke noted the word Gulf is not at the same angle on this sign as the other signs. Ms. Flores believes the Gulf should be consistent throughout the signs. Mr. Kearns explained this is the standard logo for their ground sign, which is different from the canopy sign at a 15 degree angle. Mr. Ehlke moved to approve the proposed face changes for the ground sign with fluorescent illumination. The self-service sign will be removed on the lower portion and only 1 price will be shown. The registered trademark symbol will be removed from the sign. The approval is conditional to a possible fast track approval on the sign face depth and construction of the sign face. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. The motion did not pass by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman (1) NAYS: Coen, Ehlke, Flores, Hollis, Low (5) Mr. Ehlke moved to approve the proposed face changes for the ground sign with fluorescent illumination with the Gulf and circular logo be rotated to a 15 degree angle so it is consistent with the other signs. The self-serv text will be removed from the lower portion of the sign. The registered trademark symbol will be removed from the sign. The approval is conditional to a possible fast track approval on the sign face depth and Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 4 of 10 construction of the sign face. Ms. Flores seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Ehlke, Flores, Low (4) NAYS: Coen, Hollis (2) Ch. Coen questioned why the entire sphere is not shown on the pump sign. Mr. Kearns explained that is a corporate decision. The commissioners discussed the proposed building sign. Ch. Coen noted the proposed sign is non-illuminated. He questioned the use of the name Village Auto Repair in the sign. Mr. Mistretta explained he could not use Deerfield Auto Repair. Ch. Coen questioned whether it is a business name. Ms. Spagnoli explained there is nothing in the Code requiring the use of the formal business name. Mr. Hollis questioned the white infill of the letters a, g and e in the word Village. He suggested letting the blue show through. Mr. Mistretta believes the letters are Sintra pin letters. He will try to cut, paint or print blue in those areas. Mr. Hollis moved to approve the building signage as proposed with the exception that the white infill areas in portions of the word Village be excised or painted blue to match the background color on the building. Ms. Low seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Chaitman, Coen, Ehlke, Flores, Hollis, Low (6) NAYS: None (0) 2. Portillo’s Hot Dogs, 300 S. Waukegan Road – new construction, preliminary review Patti Mahoney, property manager with RREEF Management, Sherill Abruscato, Chief Operating Officer from Portillo Restaurant Group, Rich Pozzi from Portillo Restaurant Group, Bradford McAfee, president of VIP Services Group (handling the landscaping), Jeffrey Atkins with Mercury Studios, Inc., Al Santa Maria with Olympic Signs and Walter Sydor, architect with Portillo Restaurant Group were present. Ch. Coen explained the Appearance Review Commission administers the Appearance Code for the Village. They are an impartial Commission and recommending body to the Mayor and Board of Trustees on the proposed variations. The Commission takes their charge very seriously. If the petitioner would like something other than what the Commission recommends, they could try to appeal that decision before the Mayor and Board of Trustees. Mr. Pozzi explained they tried to use some of the ideas discussed for the previous site. Ms. Abruscato noted they went from a two story building to a one story building, changed from signs on three sides to signs on two sides and updated the color pallet to reflect the Commission’s comments. Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Sydor explained in laying out the site, he tried to put the building in the same location as the previous Bally’s building. Mr. Sydor explained they moved the trash enclosure by the rear door. The drive-thru is a two lane drive-thru. Orders are taken before vehicles get to the menu board. They are making minor changes to the utilities, but are keeping the electric transformer in the existing location. The drive-thru is at the western end of the site, to keep pedestrians away from the traffic. There is an outdoor seating area that is protected by 6”x6” concrete-filled metal posts and wheel stops. Many of the pole light fixtures on the site perimeter are remaining. They added 20 additional parking spaces over the previous layout. Mr. Sydor explained they need to provide some detention on the site. Mr. Atkins explained the proposed building is one story and 8860 square feet. The base material will be a precast split faced block with a dark texture and 7’ high, the rest of the building will be creamy yellow. They propose accent medallions with black gooseneck lighting. The west elevation has dining room windows with a sun shade. They propose some brick wall detail that is highlighted with LED illumination. Mr. Atkins explained there is a 24’ wide brick panel that is accented with darker brick. The east elevation does not have windows, as it hides the kitchen. There is filled-in brick “windows” with ghost signage on them. The drive-thru windows are accented with a sun shade. The proposed signage has a slightly different font style, to be consistent with the rest of the signage. Mr. Atkins explained they made some updates within the past couple days. Ch. Coen explained the Commission will give that information an abbreviated review as they have not had the opportunity to review it prior to the meeting. Mr. Atkins explained the older locations have a large mural over the door. They propose a 3D dog sculpture mounted to the roof in lieu of the large mural. Mr. McAfee discussed the proposed landscaping. He noted there is some existing landscaping along the parkway. They propose adding some focal points and beautification to the landscaping. They will have 3-season blooms that will be hearty and can handle the elements. Mr. McAfee explained the plantings behind the menu board are important to the drive-thru experience. The trash enclosure will have ground plant material as well as flower pots on the top of the corral. He noted the plantings will be tied into the irrigation system. Mr. Atkins explained there are three styles of fixtures on the building exterior. There are up and down lights at the entrance as well as goose neck lighting and lights above and below the sun shades. The site parking lot lighting will match the existing mall lighting. The parking lot illumination will be metal halide to match the rest of the center. The building lighting will be LED. Mr. Atkins explained they are screening all of the rooftop units. There will be 3’ of corrugated aluminum at the top of the buildings to cover all of the rooftop equipment. Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 6 of 10 Ms. Mahoney explained management is looking at this building as a separate unit that ties in with the center. The commissioners discussed the site plan. Ch. Coen believes it would be nice if the dining windows faced out to Waukegan. He expressed concern that the trash enclosure faces Waukegan Road and suggested accessing the trash enclosure off the side road as it would be easier for truck access. Mr. Sydor noted that would provide room for more landscaping and additional parking. Mr. Ehlke asked where employee parking would occur. Mr. Pozzi explained employees would park at the entrance to the drive- thru. Ms. Abruscato explained there could be as many as 40 employees, but not all employees will drive to work. Mr. Ehlke would like to see a walkway from the parking spaces on the east. Ms. Abruscato explained some of those spaces will be used for the drive-thru. Ms. Low noted the food runners would need to walk through the landscaping to bring food to patrons in the drive-thru waiting spaces. Ms. Abruscato will look into it. Ms. Low asked how may bicycle rack spaces are available. Mr. Sydor explained there are eight bicycle spaces. They can add more bake racks if they removed some of the green space to the north of the bike racks. Mr. Hollis expressed concern about the two parking stalls that flank the site entrance. He would prefer to see islands. Mr. Atkins explained those spaces are currently existing. Mr. Ehlke noted employees bringing trash into the trash coral will walk through the drive-thru lane. Mr. Pozzi noted trash is brought out only during selected times. Ch. Coen recommended adding landscaping in the field of parking along Waukegan Road. Ch. Coen asked about the concrete in the outdoor seating area. Mr. Atkins explained they would have a broom finished, terra cotta colored concrete. Ch. Coen asked about the painted arrows and asked if there would be painted text stating drive-thru on the asphalt paving. Mr. Sydor explained they proposed signage for the drive-thru. Ms. Abruscato explained they also have the word drive-thru painted on the paving. She will show the placement at the next review. The commissioners discussed the proposed landscaping. Ms. Low asked who approves the landscaping along Waukegan Road. Ms. Spagnoli explained the petitioner would need to get an easement from the State. Ms. Flores asked if there are planters near the front door. Mr. AcAfee explained there would be landscaping containers near the front door. Ch. Coen asked about the condition of the existing trees. Mr. Mcfee explained the trees are in good condition. Ch. Coen believes there will be a nice planting opportunity where the trash enclosure is reconfigured. Ch. Coen looked at the proposed parking. He believes there are a number of spaces that are very far from the entrance that would be ideal for landscaping to be added. Ms. Mahoney explained removing spaces would make them in default with some of their leases. Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Hollis is not familiar with the crabapple variety specified in the submittal. Mr. McAfee explained it is an ornamental, upright grower. Ms. Low recommended using as many native or close to native species as possible. Mr. McAfee explained they are going to try to have plantings bloom throughout the seasons as well as ornamental grasses. Mr. Atkins explained they also have some landscaping pots in the seating area. He noted the outdoor furniture gets stored inside the building during the off season. The commissioners discussed the proposed exterior lighting plan. Mr. Sydor explained the fixtures will have metal halide lamps and the fixtures are all the same height. Ms. Mahoney noted the poles will match what is currently exists in the center. Mr. Ehlke noted the existing fixtures are white and the submittal states bronze. He noted the rest of the development is bronze and questioned whether the four existing poles and fixtures should be changed to bronze. The commissioners discussed the proposed building design. Ms. Chaitman and Mr. Hollis believe this looks nicer than the previous submittal. Mr. Hollis asked about the serrated roof. Mr. Atkins explained the diamond shapes under roof structure are embellishments. Mr. Hollis asked about the medallions on the west elevations. Mr. Atkins explained the medallions are all one color. He noted all of the building lighting has the same black finish. Ms. Flores asked about the blue color on the building. Mr. Atkins explained that is an accent color. Mr. Ehlke asked about the precast material. Mr. Atkins explained the precast is holding up very well. Ch. Coen noted all of the material is painted concrete rather than brick, stucco and block. Mr. Sydor explained that the brick looks just like brick. Mr. Adkins added they use very durable paint. Mr. Sydor noted they need to use brick on the arches. Mr. Adkins added the precast has grout lines and looks just like brick. Mr. Hollis asked about the proposed trash enclosure. Mr. Atkins explained the trash enclosure will be 8’ high and the colors will match the building. Ms. Low asked why some doors have windows and others do not. Mr. Atkins explained the man doors have windows. Ms. Chaitman suggested changing the teal color on the building to the green in the Portillo’s sign. Ch. Coen discussed the “wing” wall. Mr. Atkins explained this is part of the interior theming as well as the exterior nostalgia of the building. Ch.Coen does not see a need for the wing wall and believes it detracts from the building. Ch. Coen believes the waffle top does not look good from the side. Mr. Akins explained they would need to create a false parapet to move the waffle back. Mr. Ehlke believes the waffle roof and support beams need to be dropped so the beams appear to be sitting on the flanking wall as it appears to be too elevated as proposed. He is okay with breaking up the elevation with the flanked (wing) wall. Ms. Chaitman, Ms. Low and Mr. Hollis agree. Ms. Flores can take the blade (wing) wall or leave it. Mr. Atkins explained the blade wall does not have signage on it; rather, it has LED lighting to add some interest at night. Ch. Coen asked if the blade wall did not have lighting on it, would the petitioner want to keep the blade wall. Mr. Atkins stated they want to keep the blade wall. Mr. Ehlke suggested having three or four courses of lighter brick or accent color on the wing wall. Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 8 of 10 The commissioners discussed the proposed color pallet. Ms. Flores and Mr. Ehlke would like the teal color in the building to better tie in with the green color in the signage. Ms. Low would like a muted red color in lieu of the teal. The commissioners discussed the proposed materials. Ch. Coen noted the building is a painted building with faux textures. The commissioners discussed the proposed building signage. Mr. Atkins explained they made some changes in the signage, which includes changing the script in the word Portillo’s. Ms. Flores believes the letters in the squares are very difficult to read. Mr. Santa Maria believes the staggered sign draws your attention to the area. Ms. Flores expressed concern about the contrast. Mr. Atkins suggested changing the letter color to red. Mr. Ehlke believes that would take away from the word Portillo’s. Mr. Ehlke prefers the revised submittal received at the meeting to what was in the commissioner’s packets. Ch. Coen thanked the petitioner for reducing the number of signs. The Commission needs confirmation that the name of the business is Portillo’s Hot Dogs, Beef, Burgers. Salads. He noted the restaurant is a well-established venue. The commissioners would not be in favor of adding the extra verbiage if it is not part of the business’ legal name. On the east elevation, the illuminated sign would be stretched over the sun screen. If the extra verbiage is not allowed he would rather see it on the brick area. Mr. Hollis prefers the new proposal on the east elevation because the signs make more sense over the windows. The commissioners agreed. Mr.Atkins explained their trademark is currently Portillo’s Hot Dogs, Beef, Burgers, Beer. They are phasing the beer portion out of the sign and are working on a trademark for Portillo’s Hot Dogs, Beef, Burgers, Salads. The commissioners discussed the proposed north elevation. Ch. Coen is not in favor of having the Pokey architectural ornamentation or relief sign. The commissioners believe the Pokey dog is excessive signage. If the dog is removed, the commissioners would need to see the north elevation sign. Mr. Hollis noted the sign has some relief with the letter depth. Mr. Hollis believes the sign should have a flat face. The commissioners agreed. The commissioners discussed the proposed ghost signs. Mr. Adkins explained they have ghost signs on the east elevation, south elevation and west elevation. He stated the Plan Commission suggested incorporating historical information to the signs. The ghost signs have 50% intensity. Ch. Coen noted the Commission is currently working on updating the signage code. The updates do not allow ghost signs. Ms. Flores believes the quality of the ghost signage is not easy to control and looks like faded murals. Mr. Adkins explained Portillo’s uses ghost signage on almost all of their stores. Ms. Spagnoli explained the Ordinance dictates that no sign shall be painted on walls. Ms. Low is not in favor of varying from the Code. She does not believe the sign should face the street. The commissioners would not be in favor of the ghost signs. Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 9 of 10 The commissioners discussed the proposed building lighting. There is a request for red LED lighting that looks like neon on the blade wall and the entire parapet of the building. Ch. Coen is not in favor of the perimeter lighting and believes it appears to be a sign. The commissioners agree. The commissioners discussed the proposed pylon signs. Ms. Spagnoli explained the petitioner requested to be listed on two pylon signs as well as the directory sign on Lake Cook Road. Ms. Abruscato stated they would not need two pylon signs. They would be on the Beechnut Road pylon sign. The commissioners discussed the proposed directional signs. Ms. Spagnoli explained they are proposing a 3.13 square foot internally illuminated directional signs but the allowed directional signs are 2 square feet and non-illuminated. Mr. Santa Maria explained the illumination would go off an hour after closing. Mr. Hollis does not see a hardship so he would not be inclined to grant a variance. Mr. Ehlke and Ch. Coen would prefer the signs to be no larger than 2 square feet. Mr. Ehlke would be in favor of illuminated signs due to safety. Ch. Coen noted Starbucks directional signs are not illuminated. Ms. Chaitman would be in favor of signs that are 2 square feet but illuminated. Ms. Low and Ms. Flores believe the signs should be no larger than 2 square feet but be illuminated for safety. Mr. Santa Maria believes the signs should have 5” letters for safety and readability due to the number of vehicles. Mr. Ehlke suggested using a tighter arrow on the sign. Mr. Pozzi will look into this. Ms. Spagnoli noted the maximum depth of any sign is 12”. She noted the Deerbrook Mall sign criteria states the sign verbiage cannot stray from the business name or trademarked identity. The surface of the sign panels and sign faces must be flat. Ms. Spagnoli will need to evaluate the square footage of the newly proposed signs. The commissioners discussed the proposed sign variations. All of the variations /sign modifications will need to be approved by the Mayor and Board of Trustees before the Commission can consider them. Ms. Spagnoli suggested the petitioner come back to the next Appearance Review Commission meeting to discuss the signage. The commissioners discussed the proposed colors. Ch. Coen woud rather keep with the colors in the Deerbrook sign criteria. Ms. Mahoney explained Hobby Lobby has a trademark on their color and the center approved the sign color. Mr. Atkins explained at the prefiling conference, the Plan Commission stated that if the landlord is okay with the colors, they would be in favor of it. Ms. Mahoney has not seen the newly submitted signage. She stated they are okay with the five-color sign. The commissioners would be more comfortable with fewer colors on the sign, and agreed that 3 colors would be acceptable. Currently, only two colors on signs are allowed in the center. The commissioners are okay with varying from the approved color in the center. Mr. Atkins noted the proposed signage will be within 3’ of the roof deck. Ch. Coen noted that if it is not within 3’ of the roof deck, the Commission may be willing to endorse it. Appearance Review Commission February 23, 2015 Page 10 of 10 The commissioners discussed the proposed box sign. The commissioners would prefer individual letters without a box background. Ch. Coen noted the Commission does not like raceways. A flat back panel may be acceptable. Items from the Commission Ms. Flores noted the Tile Shop has a feather flag near Dunkin Donuts. Items from Staff Ms. Spagnoli noted the next meeting will be in two weeks. The Commission will discuss Portillo’s as well as the Appearance Code. Adjournment There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 pm. Respectfully submitted, Jeri Cotton Secretary